PsyMuffin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Just saw on the news, the have fully disarmed his apartment of any type of explosive, plus they also found a Batman mask in it. Very odd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulvokunvrii Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 http://gma.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-first-video-colorado-shooting-suspect-115858798--abc-news-topstories.html ^If you want to see it. I read it. Pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyMuffin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 http://gma.yahoo.com...topstories.html ^If you want to see it. I read it. Pretty interesting. So I guess the conclusion is that he was a psychopathic maniac that heard voices, and went crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 I hope some good can come out of this, in that stricter gun control laws will be passed. They are long overdue! Don't blame the guns. It was the disgusting act of the person behind the trigger. If soneone commited suicide by jumping off of a skyscraper, would you blame the skyscraper for being there? Just saw on the news, the have fully disarmed his apartment of any type of explosive, plus they also found a Batman mask in it. Very odd... And a batman movie poster. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebel_gunman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I agree with Peter. Why further the already strick gun laws to lower crime when criminals don't follow laws to begin with? Now, you've unarmed the good citizen and the only ones with a gun are the criminal pointing the weapon to the shopkeeper and the law enforcement personnel 30 minutes away. Meanwhile you are hiding behind the shelves wishing you had your gun to do something other than dial 911 and staying on the line and watch how the robber blows the shopkeep's brain out before running away 5 minutes before the police arrive! As for punishment, people like this guy make me wish they brought back firing squads, but instead of rifles they use light or medium machine guns like the m249 or the m240, with hollow points and starting spray from the feet to the chest in a side to side sweeping motion while the criminal is fastened to the wall. Too heavy, I know. But people who kill for fun, take their pain out on others and plain criminals of this magnitude (children among the cassualties... CHILDREN. ON. THE. CASSUALTIES. LIST!!!) makes me wish for this and the slow dipping mechanism on a shallow pool of strong acid! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually I agree with TC Peppy. I believe gun laws should be altered. They're too readily available for people that want to use them for things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Orange Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually I agree with TC Peppy. I believe gun laws should be altered. They're too readily available for people that want to use them for things like this. Well no matter how much you alter the gun law, no matter how much restrictions, complications, and waiting won't stop someone from getting a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russiandog38 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually I agree with TC Peppy. I believe gun laws should be altered. They're too readily available for people that want to use them for things like this. With all due respect Red, your from Scotland aren't you? If you start making stricter gun laws in America then it eventually turns into gun ban. That turns into angrier citizens, which turns into violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 With all due respect Red, your from Scotland aren't you? If you start making stricter gun laws in America then it eventually turns into gun ban. That turns into angrier citizens, which turns into violence. So what's your point? We don't have guns here and we don't have riots about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russiandog38 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So what's your point? We don't have guns here and we don't have riots about it. My point is, your country has had gun bans for a long time, so initially you think a strict gun law is right. Guns have been a part of American life ever since colonial times. People have gotten used to having them, and to simply take them away would enrage people. It probably would cause riots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 American mentality regarding guns and what not has been significantly different from most other developed nations for centuries. It's a part of their culture and it's enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. Something like stricter gun control laws in the U.S. would definitely not fly as well as it has in other countries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well the way I see it is: America - lots of gun crime. UK - hardly any gun crime. The ban here works, but it's the people's willingness to work with it that makes it effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well the way I see it is: America - lots of gun crime. UK - hardly any gun crime. The ban here works, but it's the people's willingness to work with it that makes it effective. Venezuela: Recently banned guns. Even MORE homicides. Banning would be extremely relative. I think that a stricter control on sells (psycholgical tests, practices, analysis of record) would do sufficent impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Venezuela: Recently banned guns. Even MORE homicides. Banning would be extremely relative. Are those gun homicides though? Over here people just stab each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Are those gun homicides though? Over here people just stab each other. I'm certain most of them are gun homicides. TV news, the paper, Internet... All are full of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I don't know what the UK is doing right then, because we have hardly any gun crime. o3o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I don't know what the UK is doing right then, because we have hardly any gun crime. o3o British police doesn't b***h out as ours does. And laws are actually valid and useful. So, if guns would become legal in the UK, I think it's safe to say there won't be any significant rise. What else do you expect when the Minister of Penal Affairs (best traduction I could get) is a woman that said that every crime with less than an 8 year sentence can be paid off with communitary service, and frequently denied that there were guns and drugs inside jails around the country. Meanwhile, in jails around the country [media=] Point: Strong Police and Strong laws around guns = a peaceful society that can live peacefully with legal acess to fireweapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hidi Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I've heard a little about this, but not a lot as there was another bad shooting in Canada. I'm really not sure what to think, and I believe with people like this it's wrong to speculate because what may actually be true could be the total opposite to what everyone else thinks, so then how do we look in comparison to the truth? From what's happened, he obviously knew a thing or two about using weapons, but I still think his motives could have been a wide range of near anything. In terms of the death penalty, I'd leave that up to the opinions of the people most affected. I would probably say no, as the person who was responsible for the recent shooting in Canada won't face the death penalty, but doesn't mean it should or shouldn't happen in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Don't blame the guns. It was the disgusting act of the person behind the trigger. If soneone commited suicide by jumping off of a skyscraper, would you blame the skyscraper for being there? This is a faulty analogy. The purpose of a skyscraper is to shelter people and items from the elements. The purpose of a gun is to kill things. It is perfectly reasonable to regulate items that were invented to kill things. I'm not in favor of a total weapon ban, but weapons of war have no place in civilian hands. Also, I do believe there are some people who should not own guns because of their propensity to use them to do harm. And don't give me the line about target shooting. Guns weren't invented to shoot paper or clay, and you know it. I agree with Peter. Why further the already strick gun laws to lower crime when criminals don't follow laws to begin with? Now, you've unarmed the good citizen and the only ones with a gun are the criminal pointing the weapon to the shopkeeper and the law enforcement personnel 30 minutes away. Meanwhile you are hiding behind the shelves wishing you had your gun to do something other than dial 911 and staying on the line and watch how the robber blows the shopkeep's brain out before running away 5 minutes before the police arrive! This one's a classic. But, in reality making it harder to get guns legally also reduces the number of guns possessed illegally. It doesn't eliminate the problem, of course, but it does reduce it. You need only look at countries with strong gun control laws. In Norway, for instance, they have about 110 gun deaths a year. The US exceeds that in two days. But even that aside, you don't need an AR-15 to defend against a robber. If you start making stricter gun laws in America then it eventually turns into gun ban. That turns into angrier citizens, which turns into violence. This is a textbook-worthy example of a slippery slope fallacy. What evidence do you have that stricter gun laws will lead to banning all guns? I have two strikes against that argument already: 1. We HAD an assault weapons ban, and no further gun bans were made, in fact it was allowed to expire. 2. The second amendment clearly states that guns cannot be outright banned. Further more, you continue down the slope citing that this will lead to mob violence (which you double-down on in your next post). While I don't doubt that the militia loons will probably shoot it out with the cops, I don't forsee the general public as a whole rioting about it. Whether or not you can have a gun is not on most people's top issues list. Especially in a poor economy. It will probably cause the political party in power to lose the next elections, but I don't forsee widespread riots over that issue alone. If it came in a package with some other bullshit, it might, but on it's own the issue is not as important to the average American as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russiandog38 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 ^ What evidence do I have? Take a look at these http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/ http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62428 http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx Obama is skipping the strict laws and going straight for the bans. Ok ok riots is over doing it , but there would still be violence. And more then just a few militia loons. Ever been to a Tea Party rally? Ive been to many and at least a third of the people there are holding up gun rights signs. And there are those type of people all over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Just to put it out there, a thread on gun control resulting in the shooting already exists - This thread is becoming less about the overall motive of the shooter and more into what the other should be about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ^ What evidence do I have? Take a look at these http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/ Anything that repeats the outright false claim that "Fast and Furious" was a ploy to cause a catalyst for violence so that guns could be banned must be treated with a grain of salt. This treaty is not banning guns, it regulates the sale of military weapons between countries. Also, amendments can be proposed after signing, and likely will. Also, from one of the treaty documents itself: "The only types of activities covered by the arms trade treaty should be inter-State [state meaning country] or State-authorized arms transfers. Under no circumstances should such arms be transferred to non-State entities or bodies (this prohibition does not apply to national liberation movements) without a prior import authorization issued by the State in whose territory these entities or bodies are established." So yah, no banning of guns here. Just that the transfer must be legal in the country receiving them, and that sales to countries allowing sales to NGOs have to approve importing the guns for the NGOs to import them. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/2&referer=http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/documents/&Lang=E http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62428 http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx Obama is skipping the strict laws and going straight for the bans. These are tinfoil hat sites, and one is just a forum post. Try again. Also, the administration has said repeatedly in the past few days that they have no desire for new gun laws. Ok ok riots is over doing it , but there would still be violence. And more then just a few militia loons. Ever been to a Tea Party rally? Ive been to many and at least a third of the people there are holding up gun rights signs. And there are those type of people all over the country. Also, those people at Tea Party rallies were a vocal minority. Fox News was repeatedly busted using footage from other events and stitching footage from multiple tea party events together to make them look bigger, an example: Also, many early Occupy protests outnumbered the average Tea Party rally, though both movements have since greatly diminished in active numbers. And the John Steward/Stephen Colbert fake rally pulled more people in than the Tea Party rallies in DC. EDIT: Since this post, Obama has taken a stand on gun issues. In the interest of truth, here is what he said yesterday: I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation. That hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller. He then went on to call for more stringent background checks for criminal and mental health records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts